Talk:Twilight archon
Source = BlizzCon information. PsiSeveredHead 11:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Weapon What attack does it do? Does it do standard damage not splash damage? Are you sure it has feedback?(Assaulthead 00:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)) We have no reason to doubt the source.--Hawki 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Well prove it please.(Assaulthead 09:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)) The info is from StarCraft Legacy's encyclopedia, most of the info coming from official Blizzard sources. Granted, said info is subject to change, but I see no reason to doubt it at this point in time.--Hawki 09:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Stats Um...why have all the Twilight Archon's stats been removed? Even if it isn't an in-game unit, they should be preserved for historical purposes and fit the manual of style?--Hawki 08:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC) My thought is the Twilight Archon article should be completely merged with the Archon article, just noting the "Twlight Archon" as a simple development step to the final result. This would be in line with the Marine for SC1 which underwent a number of name changes. Meco 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Well, it is a possibility. But I think it's better to wait for the final product to be released. The Twilight Archon could be brought back as a player unit, it could be one of the promised NPC units that appear in the campaign and it could easily still be canon even without a unit appearance (eg. in DT: Twilight). Even then, there's a substantial ammount of information avaliable to keep the article IMO, unlike say creating an article for the "Trilobyte" (original name for the Reaver).--Hawki 09:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC) If the Twilight Archon makes a come back in one form or another we can always make a new article suited to the new information. If the SC2 Archon goes back to being TA, we'll just move the SC2 part of the Archon article back. But at the moment everything in the TA article is, really, Archon development info. Meco 09:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC) And extensive development info at that. To insert the images alone would be going on a tangent in the Archon article, not to mention the game info. We already have article seperation for Ghosts, Infested Terrans and Dark Templar. The Twilight Archon case is a similar principle. It was replaced by the Archon rather than developed into the Archon IMO. A single Twilight Archon article would not only have enough info to be viable (as in not a stub) but would allow the accessing of optional information for users rather than forcing it on them.--Hawki 09:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Image storage PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Heroes of the Storm Twilight Archon vs Archon So, I just noted this from watching a game. http://i.imgur.com/tPNJ1bQ.jpg When Tassadar turns into a normal Archon, it's the normal blue color. When he turns into a Twilight Archon, the Archon has a purple aura, and shoots a Psionic Shock-wave that is a mix of black and purple energy. So, essentially, you get a Dark Archon's red aura and an Archon's blue aura together to make a Twilight Archon's purple aura. Should we update the article that Twilight Archons have a purple aura or ignore this information since it is from Heroes of the Storm? The artwork we have now on the page was made before the Twilight Archon was cut, and the only place where it shows up in the lore decisively is Frontline where it's in a black-and-white medium. Heroes of the Storm is the only place I know of that has a Twilight Archon still present in the actual game and shows it in color, and while I know the Nexus storyline isn't canon with us only adding specific things talking about the StarCraft universe in the wiki here, does it trump the old art images for the old StarCraft website? --Shadow Archon (talk) 20:37, June 4, 2015 (UTC) :It can be noted in the article, but I wouldn't apply it lore-wise.--Hawki (talk) 22:58, June 4, 2015 (UTC) :So, would you rather it be put into a Notes subsection or the main section with a Heroes of the Storm "non-canon" tag? --Shadow Archon (talk) 01:19, June 5, 2015 (UTC) ::I've added the data. However, looking at the images, I can't see that much of a difference.--Hawki (talk) 09:48, June 5, 2015 (UTC) ::You can't see the different colors in the different forms? --Shadow Archon (talk) 15:43, June 5, 2015 (UTC) :::I can see some, but not much, and it could be attritutable to lighting effects, especially as the latter is in one of the "mist parts" of TotSQ.--Hawki (talk) 00:49, June 6, 2015 (UTC) :::I don't know what to tell you. To me, there's a very clear difference between the too. :::The lighting isn't affecting it. It's just that blue outside of the mist as it is in it. The Twilight Archon's clearly purple, and the Normal is clearly blue to me, no matter where the Archon is at. :::I'll try and nab a screenshot later to show it outside the mist. I deleted the video I watched, so I'll have to download it again after midnight. He uses Archon a few good times. --Shadow Archon (talk) 01:13, June 6, 2015 (UTC)